Published: Wednesday, April 2 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
"The PCA would allow greater flexibility for insurance companies to craft
their products to meet the needs of their customers, allowing them to provide
the kind of streamlined, less expensive plans that have been cancelled by the
ACA." Of course allowing stripped down plans would make the granting of
individual subsidies as allowed under the ACA, much more difficult, as you must
know. On the basis of that alone I would reject the PCA.Moreover,
the House of Representatives won't pass the PCA. For example, the American
Enterprise Institute finds it insufficiently "market oriented."
From the article. '..Hatch has proposed the Patient CARE Act, a
more market-based approach to health care.' In 2014. Americans have been filing bankruptcy due to medical causes, since 1980. 1980. Dollar short, and a day late. America
will not look for alternatives from the GOP, only AFTER Democrats created a
This dnews editorial brought I mean bought and paid for by Orrin Hatch and the
Letting people keep junk policies is hardly a benefit... at least not for anyone
who gets sick."The PCA would allow Medicaid patients to get
private insurance instead of government coverage, which would likely lower costs
to taxpayers. "There is no reason to believe it'd lower
costs to taxpayers, and you know why? One of the gripes about Medicare/Medicaid
is the claim that it doesn't pay out enough. If it's not for profit,
and is allegedly shortchanging hospitals/doctors, then it can't possibly be
more expensive than private insurance. Public options just are cheaper,
that's why the insurance lobby worked so hard to get rid of the public
option from Obamacare.
The Republicans are on the wrong side of history once again. Such is the nature
of American "Conservatism."Before Democrats proposed
the ACA, huge oligopolistic insurance companies had Republican legislators in
their pockets, and Republican politicians gave NO THOUGHT at all to health
care reform. Republican politicians were not about to stop a gravy train that
had proven so lucrative to exploiters who funded their campaigns and otherwise
lined the pockets of Republican "public servants."Thus,
Americans paid more money for health care than anywhere else in the world, and
achieved only middling results. Republican Party leadership was by and large
extremely happy with perpetuating a status quo that made chumps out of American
citizens while enriching exploiters with close ties to Republican politics.Democrats persevered in pushing through the ACA, while Republicans, who
now hypocritically champion their own government-sponsored health care
"alternative," screamed SOCIALISM.Republicans should stop
wasting time and resources, and actually do something for this nation instead of
obstructing progress. More Americans now support the ACA than oppose it. The
Repubs should just get on board and work to improve it, not replace it.
"This latest snafu doesn’t come as a surprise to a nation weary of
President Barack Obama’s signature health care legislation." Not so.Although Republicans are extremely slow in recognizing it,
Americans are becoming more and more weary of Republican obstructionism and
resistance to progress.Haven't you Right Wingers begun to
notice the huge gap between what you thought was true, and what is actually
true?No . . . FOX "NEWS" and Rush Limbaugh do not report
the news. They simply reinforce your prejudices in an attempt to turn your
misperceptions into a reality. They think they can create a bandwagon of
misperception that a whole lot of people will want to jump on, thus creating a
Republican voting majority and the desired reality.It's not
working though. Sensible people are jumping off by the thousands.More people support than oppose the ACA, and if Republicans insist on
challenging it, you might well lose seats in Congress . . . So just keep on
doing what you're doing.Republicans have certainly lost the
trust of the more discerning Americans.
So I just read on Senator Hatch's website his "proposal" but it
doesn't actually say how the patient care act is going to work, it mainly
seems to be saying that it's better than the ACA. But those 5 pages are not
a plan, is there somewhere that you can find the actual plan, not a list of
talking points that explains nothing.
The Patient Care Act has not exactly been embraced by the GOP. If anything, it
has been almost completely ignored.The GOP base seems to have the
belief that healthcare system in America has been working fine. It does not
appear that they see any need to address or change it. That boggles my mind.I will give Hatch and company credit for at least putting forth specific
proposals. It is (or should be) a starting point for actual debate and far more
constructive than just screaming REPEAL over and over.As in many
things, the first step is to acknowledge that we have a problem.
On the one hand "This is better than the ACA" isn't saying much;
when you're throat-ramming something as clearly and knowingly divisive,
immoral, and government-centered as obamacare, you know something is horribly
wrong with it.On the other hand, PCARE certainyl sounds like a
decent alternative, assuming we're excluding the status quo. Then again, I
haven't read it yet.
The Patient Care Act? Really? Even the House republicans won't touch that
with a ten foot pole. They can't get it past their own party.
There should always be many alternatives to the ACA. Hopefully the ACA will end
up being one of many options Americans will have to choose from for their
medical care. Leave the ACA where it belonged, namely, for the presently
uninsured who can't get insurance due to not having a job, or having an
expensive pre-existing condition that private insurers won't take or will
cost too much for the average citizen to pay for. That last, by the way, is the
best part of the spirit of ACA. Whether it will be reality is yet to be seen.
The last thing the ACA should become is a single payer/single provider system.
That will end up with you getting your teeth pulled instead of having root
canals and expensive crowns. Believe me, I lived in England for 2 years, and it
is no myth about their bad and frequently missing teeth. All courtesy of the
National Health Care system over there. Which if you don't have money,
you're stuck with.
We are almost midway through 2014.Sorry repubs, this whole health
care reform ship has already sailed. Maybe you folks should have
done something other than kick the can down the road when you had the power to
actually do something for the American people (2000-08).
The only thing this American is wary of, is the maniacal obstructionism of the
conservatives.In spite of a gigantic mis-information campaign by the
right, especially Koch Brother funded groups, the ACA has had close to 7 million
people sign up. If the red states had been on board the number of sign-ups would
be huge.Liberals have led the way on civil rights, Social Security,
Medicare, labor laws, etc. and in 5 years we will add the ACA to that list!
Hatch's PCA is a scam. It taxes your insurance payments so you get nailed
twice. It makes no provision for covering pre-existing conditions unless
you've been "continuously insured." This is called a Catch-22:
"We'll cover your condition, but only if you're already
covered." That's a good one. Of course, it is April.....
I read the DN to get a different perspective from the paper and it's
readers. But, I am often amazed at how bias and decievious it's editorials
are. Also, its puzzling how contrary posts are often rejected for using the
same language and punctuation the paper itself uses. Concerning this editioral
the writer quotes"The PCA would allow Medicaid patients to get private
insurance instead of government coverage, which would likely lower costs to
taxpayers. The PCA approach would go a long way toward making Medicaid
sustainable for future generations."Excuse me, but that's exactly
what the ACA does. It allows consumers to get guarenteed private insurance
which increases the pool of users while lowering costs (that's what the
research shows, we'll have to wait to see the data instead of relying on
Faux News).The DN's editorials often lack sound reasoning instead
relying on emotionally based arguments that appeal to the communities
conservative views. But we should expect better than that from our local paper
and hold them to the same standards they impose on their readers who submit
Let me say that this paper getting fully on the anti-Obama bandwagon is beyond
disappointing. The ACA was passed for a reason. Take a look at the pages of
your own paper. In today's online edition, there is a story of a young man
in an auto accident who is facing massive medical costs. He was uninsured.
This is what the ACA is trying to avoid. Please, connect the dots. Millions
signed up, many waiting to the last minute which caused the system to falter.
This is, in the end, success. Your snarky attacks serve no purpose. Turning to
farcical bandaids as alternatives does not solve the problem. If you
weren't so partisan and negative, you could encourage your readers to
comply with the law of the land, and we can move forward with any fixes that the
ACA could use. Perhaps a constructive attitude from this paper would be
beneficial rather than falling into the slimmy mess of the haters. This paper
owes its readers at least the semblance of adhering to the 12th Article of Faith
inasmuch as you are the voice of your sponsor/owner.
"The PCA would allow Medicaid patients to get private insurance instead of
government coverage, which would likely lower costs to taxpayers."What??? Where has the editorial board of the Deseret News been for the past
thirty years? Is it not amply clear that for profit insurance companies
actually RAISE costs to consumers? Their entire business model is based on
paying out the least amount for claims while raising premiums as high as they
possibly can. Insurance companies' overhead is much higher than that of
Medicare, for example--it costs money to pay those CEOs and advertise and fund
their claims denial apparatus. So Medicare's overhead is something like
2-3% versus 10-20% for insurance companies.Not to mention that if we
look at the rest of the Western world, they basically all have single-payer
systems (otherwise known as socialized medicine) and they offer universal
coverage for HALF of what we spend.So any movement to privatize more
of our healthcare system will lead to higher costs, not lower costs.
You guys do realize that the ACA was signed into law four years ago, right? And
upheld by the Supreme Court two years ago?Maybe your wishful
thinking will help Romney defeat President Obama while you're at it...
As much as you wanted, tried and encouraged the ACA to fail, it is not fitting
that the website was glitchy on the last enrollment day. On the other hand, in
spite of your efforts, and indeed fate and the efforts of those trying to make
it work, it seems to be a success. Or at least heading in that direction.
That's a lot better than what you're proposing, but not nearly close
enough to the single payer system we need.
The fact that once again under Hatch's proposal an individual could be
denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition is enough of a reason to
toss this mess right in the garbage where it belongs. The time has come to
improve on what we have, not start over. Republicans should get on board and
help with that process or get out of the way.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments